Play by Play v. Color Commentary

[Randy_Carson]

Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived without sin. If she was concieved without sin why did she need a savior in Lk1:47?
If she had no sin why was she bringing a sin offering to the temple in Lk 2:24?

I can save you by pulling you out of the pit into which you have already fallen

OR

I can grab you at the last second thereby saving you just before you tumble over the edge. You’re saved either way.

Mary was saved FROM the stain of original sin beforehand intead of being saved by having the stain washed away afterward.

 

[newbie1234]

I can save you by pulling you out of the pit into which you have already fallen

OR

I can grab you at the last second thereby saving you just before you tumble over the edge. You’re saved either way.

Mary was saved FROM the stain of original sin beforehand intead of being saved by having the stain washed away afterward.

So if you read matt11:11 was John the Baptist born sinless also. Since there was none born of woman greater than he?

 

[NotWorthy]

So if you read matt11:11 was John the Baptist born sinless also. Since there was none born of woman greater than he?

I would say John the Baptist was conceived with Original Sin, but was cleansed of this condition while in the womb.

So yes, John the Baptist was born without Original Sin.

 

[newbie1234]

I can save you by pulling you out of the pit into which you have already fallen

OR

I can grab you at the last second thereby saving you just before you tumble over the edge. You’re saved either way.

Mary was saved FROM the stain of original sin beforehand intead of being saved by having the stain washed away afterward.

Which verses in scripture confirm this belief?
How about prophetically. Any prophecy confirm this belief?

 

[NotWorthy]

Which verses in scripture confirm this belief?
How about prophetically. Any prophecy confirm this belief?

Why must everything taught in the Bible be “versed”? Where does it state that everything taught in the Bible is spoon-fed like a textbook.

For instance, do you believe in the Holy Trinity? If so, what verse says there is a Holy Trinity. No, you simply draw it from the context of many books, and reconcile that with the teaching of Yahweh in the OT.

For the answer to your question, however, study the OT Ark of the Covenant and it’s correlation to Mary. Either Luke drew up the greatest coincidence in Biblical History or he was presenting Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. From that, it’s easy to show how Mary was conceived without stain.

 

[newbie1234]

Why must everything taught in the Bible be “versed”? Where does it state that everything taught in the Bible is spoon-fed like a textbook.

For instance, do you believe in the Holy Trinity? If so, what verse says there is a Holy Trinity. No, you simply draw it from the context of many books, and reconcile that with the teaching of Yahweh in the OT.

For the answer to your question, however, study the OT Ark of the Covenant and it’s correlation to Mary. Either Luke drew up the greatest coincidence in Biblical History or he was presenting Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. From that, it’s easy to show how Mary was conceived without stain.

I can prove the trinitarian doctrine by chapter and verse.
But I can’t find anything about the immaculate conception or assumption.
The ark theory is a stretch because there have been many covenants and not all of them needed an ark.
Edenic-no ark
Adamic-no ark
Noahic- Noah’s ark
Abrahamic- no ark
Mosaic-ark of the testimony
Not all covenants have an ark

 

[newbie1234]

I would say John the Baptist was conceived with Original Sin, but was cleansed of this condition while in the womb.

So yes, John the Baptist was born without Original Sin.

And you’re making this up also, right?
You can’t just make statements that are not backed up by the bible.
That is the whole point!
If the church or magisterium or pope makes up a doctrine that has no biblical foundation, I choose not to believe it.
The church says it’s true because it is our ‘sacred tradition’
All that means is they ‘made up’ the doctrine 1000years ago.
It didn’t have biblical foundation then either.

 

[NotWorthy]

I can prove the trinitarian doctrine by chapter and verse.
But I can’t find anything about the immaculate conception or assumption.
The ark theory is a stretch because there have been many covenants and not all of them needed an ark.
Edenic-no ark
Adamic-no ark
Noahic- Noah’s ark
Abrahamic- no ark
Mosaic-ark of the testimony
Not all covenants have an ark

I don’t recall saying that the New Covenant needed an Ark. Can you point out where I did?

I’m just saying there are a vast majority of “God-incidences” between Luke’s description of Mary’s Visitation to Elizabeth and 2nd Samuel where David brings the Ark to the Hills of Judea.

Isn’t it also an exteme coincidence (I really prefer “God-incidence” since we are talking about the inspired Word) that Elizabeth “Cry” is a rare Greek word that is only used five times in the OT, and each time it’s in the context of shouts of joy during liturgical ceremonies associated with the Ark of the Covenant.

Then our good friend John happens to show the OT Ark immediately followed by Mary, who just “happens” to be shown bodily in heaven, as if she were Assumed?

You see, my friend, it’s Biblical!!!

 

[JimG]

If the church or magisterium or pope makes up a doctrine that has no biblical foundation, I choose not to believe it.

Such as, which books belong in the bible?

The table of contents page is not, I think, a part of divine revelation.

 

[newbie1234]

Such as, which books belong in the bible?

The table of contents page is not, I think, a part of divine revelation.

God made up which books belong in the bible, not the CC

 

[SuzieB]

The Catholic Church did indeed choose which gospels are included in the New Testament. I’m sure one of these good Catholics will tell is when and how. I used to know but have forgotten.

 

[newbie1234]

The Catholic Church did indeed choose which gospels are included in the New Testament. I’m sure one of these good Catholics will tell is when and how. I used to know but have forgotten.

The bible was inspired by God. Each book in there is inspired.(except apocrypha)
God led the ECF on which books to include. Men did not ‘decide’ on anything. The bible is God’s creation not man’s.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Catholic Church did indeed choose which gospels are included in the New Testament. I’m sure one of these good Catholics will tell is when and how. I used to know but have forgotten.

Started around 390 with a local Synod, although I’m not sure where it was held. Then the councils of Hippo and Carthage re-affirmed them.

How? Why, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of course. You see, Jesus keeps His Promises!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

The bible was inspired by God. Each book in there is inspired.(except apocrypha)

Yeah, but luckily there’s no Apochrypha in there!!!

God led the ECF on which books to include. Men did not ‘decide’ on anything. The bible is God’s creation not man’s.

Incidentally, there were some 120 some odd books being considered for the NT Canon during this time. The Holy Spirit truly worked through the Church to determine which books truly belonged.

It wasn’t the Church that gave us the Bible.
It wasn’t the Holy Spirit, either.

It was the Holy Spirit, working through the Church that gave us the Bible, and thank God for that (I know, bad pun!)

 

[newbie1234]

Yeah, but luckily there’s no Apochrypha in there!!!

Incidentally, there were some 120 some odd books being considered for the NT Canon during this time. The Holy Spirit truly worked through the Church to determine which books truly belonged.

It wasn’t the Church that gave us the Bible.
It wasn’t the Holy Spirit, either.

It was the Holy Spirit, working through the Church that gave us the Bible, and thank God for that (I know, bad pun!)

I have the feeling that God’s Word would have been produced exactly as He willed it, no matter if the Romans or Greeks or the CC or the Chinese were in power.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Yeah, but luckily there’s no Apochrypha in there!!!

Incidentally, there were some 120 some odd books being considered for the NT Canon during this time. The Holy Spirit truly worked through the Church to determine which books truly belonged.

It wasn’t the Church that gave us the Bible.
It wasn’t the Holy Spirit, either.

It was the Holy Spirit, working through the Church that gave us the Bible, and thank God for that (I know, bad pun!)

The problem with this thread is that after every Catholic point made, I now mentally attach a John Madden “HEY-ohhhhh.”

 

[NotWorthy]

I have the feeling that God’s Word would have been produced exactly as He willed it, no matter if the Romans or Greeks or the CC or the Chinese were in power.

Yes, you are absolutely right.

When I proudly stand up and announce that the Holy Spirit worked through the Catholic Church, I am just as certain that without the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church would be absolutely nothing. It would have crumbled into dust before the end of the first century.

But she is the Bride of Christ, and as I said before, the Gates of Hell will never prevail upon her, for Christ is with her till the end of the age.

 

[Tomster]

A simple one would be Immaculate Conception contradicts Luke1:47 and Luke2:24

Gabriel saluted Mary, “Hail full of grace,” using that form of greeting in place of her name. As Solomon is called the Wise Man and the Messias the Just One, so Mary is named Full of Grace. Since the sanctifying grace in a soul is proportioned to the love God bears that soul, the grace of Mary, even at the beginning of her existence, surpassed that of any man or angel except the fullness of grace which was in the human soul of Christ.

 

[newbie1234]

Gabriel saluted Mary, “Hail full of grace,” using that form of greeting in place of her name. As Solomon is called the Wise Man and the Messias the Just One, so Mary is named Full of Grace. Since the sanctifying grace in a soul is proportioned to the love God bears that soul, the grace of Mary, even at the beginning of her existence, surpassed that of any man or angel except the fullness of grace which was in the human soul of Christ.

The Vulgate translation which uses the term ‘full of grace’ Lk1:28 is misinterpreted. My three bibles kjv,nkjv amplified,and concordance use’highly favored one’
The misinterpretation leads the church into the Immaculate Conception. Which is erroneous.
Matt11:11 states there was none greater than John the Baptist, does this mean he was sinless also?

 

[rr1213]

The Vulgate translation which uses the term ‘full of grace’ Lk1:28 is misinterpreted. My three bibles kjv,nkjv amplified,and concordance use’highly favored one’
The misinterpretation leads the church into the Immaculate Conception. Which is erroneous.
Matt11:11 states there was none greater than John the Baptist, does this mean he was sinless also?

There are some on these boards who would contend that John the Baptist was also without sin since the holy spirit entered him while he was within the womb at the time Mary visited her kinswomen Elizabeth.